'A Life Well-Lived.'

​The aftermath of Gordon Elliott’s fall from grace, once the hysteria has died-down, will almost certainly be that racing will yet again have to justify its existence; again and again ‘the racing family’ will have to emphasise the high level of care granted to each and every racehorse, always being careful not to underplay the risks we ask of them for our entertainment and employment. One fatality, one act of selfish indulgence, will be all that is needed for our detractors to accuse racing of hypocrisy and greed. It is a fine line that the sport treads that will only become thinner as society becomes ever more urbanised and ever more woke.
The truth is this; not one of us can be 100% pure and perfect in our emotions and daily interactions 100% of the time, as Gordon Elliott can testify. The B.H.A.’s laudable aspirations of ‘respect from birth to death’ and ‘a life well-lived’ cannot be achieved 100% of the time; at some level or other, either today or a day in the future, someone will fall short of the B.H.A.’s honourable ambitions and when the bad light illuminates someone’s failings and the low-lifes that inhabit social media get their teeth into whatever shortcomings are revealed, horse-racing will without warning be thrown onto the back foot, even with 99.99% of racehorses comfortably housed in their stables, with little complaint of their human carers. On such occasions horse racing is a sitting duck; a bared backside ripe for kicking.
This week, in the sort of news-story mainstream media would never think to carry, the admirable Black Corton was retired, with his owners gifting him to Bryony Frost to care-for for the rest of his life. I am quite certain Black Corton will have no quibbles about his after racing retirement. Logistically, though, such happy outcomes are impossible to accomplish 100% of the time, no matter how sincere the B.H.A.’s intentions. And who, ultimately, is responsible for the after-racing care of a racehorse? The B.H.A. suggest the responsibility lies with owners but with so many horses owned by syndicates and by people with little or no knowledge of how to care for a horse, there is too much scope for ignorance to steer the ship of charity.
I well remember the shocking state Hello Dandy ended up in, found malnourished on a rubbish tip, I think it was. I could not believe anyone who benefitted and shared his Grand National triumph could allow him to drift out of their lives to the point where he was in need of rescue. The Jockey Club were of the opinion, as was their line at the time, that it was the owner who was responsible for the care of the horse, not the sport and certainly not them, yet the owner had given Hello Dandy to a friend to look after …. Need I say more. Thank God the horse found a knight in shining armour in Carrie Humble, who rebuilt him and looked after him for the rest of his life.
The point I am slowly getting to is this: the B.H.A.’s aspiration of care and respect from birth to the grave is admirable, and everyone within racing has a duty to comply with the instruction but the integrity of the aspiration tends to fall on individuals, welfare organisations and retraining charities, not on the sport as a whole. It has long been a gripe of mine that horse racing is all too willing to put on race-days to raise money for human charities but in the main ignores the equestrian charities that should be foremost in its thoughts and would shine a favourable light in the sport’s direction.
Australia has a retirement facility for retired racehorses which is a tourist destination for race-fans. The Irish National Stud is home to some of the country’s best-known ex-racehorses, and again the public can visit and see close-up horses that are regarded as national treasures. We do not have anything comparable, and we should have. Indeed, if the B.H.A. are totally committed to its ‘a life well-lived’ slogan it should have as an aspiration a similar home for retired racehorses, where the general public and in particular racing enthusiasts can pay their entrance fee and equally pay homage to Britain’s equine national treasures. There should be charity race-days to highlight the aspiration of ‘a life well-lived’ and to raise funds for the purchase of a suitable facility that can be transformed into a National Retirement Home for Racehorses. Not every retired racehorse, of course, but as many as funds can accommodate.
When we are embarrassed and humiliated by thoughtless acts perpetrated by trainers and jockeys failing in their duty of care to the sport and to the horses that help to pay their mortgage, the only reply we can give is on the lines of it’s a one-off incident, it’s not like that anywhere else. It smacks of ‘not my fault, chum, I was asleep at the time. Yet the same people shocked and disgusted by the sight of a man sitting on a dead horse will defend to their last breath a jockey using a whip to get the last ounce of energy out of a live horse.
There was a time, if you remember, when bookmakers and handicappers lobbied for every horse to be ridden-out to the finishing post to make life easier for them. Common-sense reigned, thankfully, and the welfare of the horse remained supreme. It is maddening to me that a jockey will get a longer ban for being ‘too easy’ on a horse or for misreading the finishing line, than a jockey who transgresses the whip rules. It is not a case of ‘a life well-lived’ for the horse subjected to over-zealous use of the whip, even if the whip is nowadays soft and bendy. Isn’t it the case that if I used a soft and bendy whip to coerce a dog into doing something it was not keen to do, I would be subject to the law of cruelty? Respect from birth to death but not necessarily in the final furlong of a race, I suggest. Where’s the dignity in being subjected to the crack of the whip!